To My Many Friends in the IAQ and Integrity in Science/PR/Media Industries,

See forwarded from QuanTEM Labs Newsletter of Jan 2010.

It is amazing what lengths some will go to, to promote a litigation defense argument that anyone who says mold can harm contrary to the interests of the insurance industry, should repeatedly be held out in false light.

QuanTEM Labs (www.quantem.com) out of Oklahoma chose to run an excerpt in their Jan 2010 newsletter from that horrid 2008 false light writing by Daniel Heimpel and Jill Stewart of LAWeekly regarding my family and the mold issue. A quick read of what QuanTEM Labs chose to site and one can see it was a mean spirited endeavor…within the same newsletter that their President, John Barnett, discussed the wonderful spirit of holiday giving in Oklahoma.

QuanTEM Labs blasted the newsletter out to the remediation industry nationwide. I have asked them nicely 5 times (and not so nicely the 6th time) that they blast out a retraction. To date, I have not even received the courtesy of a return phone call from the owners or marketing person of this “professional” IAQ lab.

So you all know, there is still pending litigation over this matter. Contrary to the false light QuanTEM Labs citing to LAWeekly, “investigative” journalist, Daniel Heimpel and their “news” editor, Jill Stewart, I am not single handedly responsible for all mold litigation throughout the US.

I would never force my daughter with Cystic Fibrosis to sleep in a dirty old trailer. I could not keep a trailer in my drive if I wanted to, My CC&R’s would never permit it. My husband is not a criminal and I do not blame the fact that I have aged nine years…in the past nine years… on mold. Nor do I run a worldwide mold campaign from a dark, dirty hovel behind drawn blinds. And I am not 56 years old, even today. I was 52 when this article was published.

If you received this “news” letter from QuanTEM Labs, please know that this is a fraudulent article they site to that has been very hurtful to my family, who are innocent bystanders of my speaking out of a deceit in science that has been mass marketed to the courts over the mold issue in interest of the insurance industry. The underlying matter is still in litigation.

FROM THE JANUARY 2010 NEWS LETTER “QUANTEM CHRONICLE” FROM QUANTEM LABS, OKLAHOMA:

“Friends, it is now 2010, the parties are over, it’s time to get back to work and go forward with the new year.I hope everyone enjoyed a happy holiday season. We had a great Christmas with family, friends and an unusual guest this year, a WHITE CHRISTMAS…. The interesting part was the number of drivers who stopped to help those in trouble. Everywhere you looked there were people helping to push, pull and shovel fellow travelers’ cars back onto the road. I’m sure these people have no idea how much of an affect they had on the holidays of those stranded. Not asking for pay, just out there in the cold lending a helping hand. Just like in business, life requires we all pitch in to get the job done.” Have a great New Year!John E. Barnett
President
QuanTEM Laboratories, LLCjbarnett@quantem.comJanuary 2010“The Toxic Mold Rush: California Mom Helps Fuel an Obsession”The old trailer where she forced her daughter to sleep in the bad days takes up most of the driveway. Her home sits at the end of the cul-de-sac of upper-middle-class homes in San Diego’s North County. Odors from two overweight dogs have permeated the house, sinking into the dark-brown rug, and rising from tracks of dirt along the floor. It’s a scene of disorder: The living room couches are much too large, the cabinets are crammed with bric-abrac and papers brought from the old house after the leak. After the world changed.It is here, in a small room behind drawn wooden shutters, that Sharon Kramer maintains her national, sometimes global crusade against mold. She sits at a desk piled with articles she is working on, journals on indoor air quality and scientific reports. And there is dust everywhere, as if nobody has been in the room in a very long time. “I just don’t understand why this guy is being such a hardass,” the 56-year-old says over the phone to a local bureaucrat, her thick fingers nervously tracing on the notepad in front of her. The skin on her face is loose from age and fluctuations in weight. But she blames it all on the mold. Her lips are pursed in measured anger. “My husband will pay the fine, but he shouldn’t have a misdemeanor. This is a small town and I don’t think this new attorney understands how things work.”

I would guess that the purpose of this email would not be a surprise to you. Your mold article that was published last week was riddled with inaccuracy and personal attacks. It has continued the nightmare that I have lived for the last 6 years. I talked to you for only a few minutes and your seeming hidden agenda and lack of compassion was apparent. Your article validated this initial suspicion; I only wish that I had talked to you originally so that I could have warned Sharon not to trust you. You know what, though, I can take it, and you know Sharon can handle it, but what really gets us both is the way you portrayed Erin as the “starring victim.” She just started her first real job out of college, and she had to come back from lunch and explain this horrendous article to her new fellow employees.

Of all involved in this article, she does not deserve this. Is this what you wanted to accomplish? Maybe this is your normal mode of operation, maybe the opportunity to be “creative” won out over the basic concept of presenting the truth. Either way it defamed my family and I expect a published apology.

I am Ms. Kramer’s attorney in her underlying litigation with Bruce Kelman and Veritox. I provided substantial documentation to Daniel Heimpel that he either ignored, misquoted or fabricated something entirely contrary to it in his article. (I must admit, Mr. Heimpel was a former media law student of mine and I’m ashamed of that fact – he obviously learned nothing about defamation law from my course). I am a defamation law specialist. With that said, let me say one thing: take Ms. Kramer’s demands very seriously. It is in your best interest to do so. (I am a member of the Media Law Resource Center, a group of media defense lawyers, and thus I am precluded from bringing libel claims against members of the media. I can assure you that there are many lawyers without such a limitation who would be VERY interested in taking on a case against the L.A. Weekly on behalf of Ms. Kramer. Let me put it this way: If this matter came in to me as a defense lawyer, trust me…..I would be concerned).

“Changes in construction methods have caused US buildings to become perfect petri dishes for mold and bacteria to flourish when water is added. Instead of warning the public and teaching physicians that the buildings were causing illness; in 2003 the US Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform, a think-tank, and a workers comp physician trade organization mass marketed an unscientific nonsequitor to the courts to disclaim the adverse health effects to stave off liability for financial stakeholders of moldy buildings. Although publicly exposed many times over the years, the deceit lingers in US courts to this very day.” Sharon Noonan Kramer